This year’s essay question: “What laws, rules, and policies restricting body modification are acceptable? How would they impact society? How would they impact the body modification community?” — and finally, the winning essay:
The evolution of the conception of authority and its relation to the modern perception of body modification and freedom of the body as a right
by Diego Olavarr�a (IAM:diego in distortion)
I. A brief history of the nature of authority and how the way it has changed is related to modern body modification
Government is, essentially, a system that seeks to constrain and delimit free will. It is in the nature of government to centralize, to restrict, to force a social cohesion upon individuals that can very easily clash against each other. Individuals have, according to psychological theories developed by a variety of authors, but particularly by Sigmund Freud, a natural tendency towards egoism and self-centeredness. As an example of how pervasive this sentiment is in humans, it has been noted how, as children, they are unable to distinguish the external world from themselves. Children, especially toddlers, are believed to be mostly unable to understand the complex relationships that occur on the outside world and therefore unable to think outside of a paradigm that centers everything around their immediate desires. They are unable to think about other people’s desires and, in this sense, until the child is confronted with other human beings in a social situation, they are unable to think about anything else than their own well-being (avoidance of pain). This constant search for avoidance of pain is is what Freud referred to as the pleasure principle, which eventually clashes with the reality principle represented by the external world and society (this usually occurs in early childhood, and what basically occurs is that we come to realize that, in order to live in a society, some pain is inevitable).
But when it comes to our relationships with strangers, it is arguable that it the principle of pleasure is still a very pervasive first-response to any situation, and particularly violent among the individuals of the first societies that were no longer nomadic. The clash between the real world in all its complexity and the egoist and self-centered subjectivity of a child is comparable to what occurs when grown men are forced to live together in a society which strives to survive and conflict of interest arises. A society of this nature needs as much peace and stability as possible, and the intervention of authorities among humans forces them, in a way, to balance their differences out and find a way to get along better, which in turn allows a society to have better chances for survival. That is why any governing force demands for compromise of certain impulses and presents this as being necessary in order to maintain peace. For example, no matter how long someone has not had sex for, they are not allowed to rape. Rape could be understood as satisfying your own necessities at the expense of others, disregarding any amount of damage which could be inflicted upon other members of society. Stealing and murdering are also prohibited for the same reasons.
Through promotion of cohesion and imposition of certain limits to interactions, and by forcing all parties to certain degrees of compromise, government (or whatever authorities exist) may be able to create a society in which peace is promoted at various levels. However, the problem is that, as a society becomes larger and authorities pass from being just figures that are necessary sporadic quarrel resolution and begin having �full time� jobs, society starts to stratify itself and, as some make it to the top, others get stuck at the bottom. And the more a society has large disparities in wealth and power, the less likely it is for those in power to compromise significantly: it is them who enforce whatever social order they believe is necessary for maintaining their power and oblige others to sacrifice their principle of pleasure. And at this point, the principle of pleasure can be related not only to destructive social behavior in the pursuit of avoidance of pain, but also to the freedom and liberties (including freedom of expression) which we consider essential nowadays.
Taking this into consideration, I find it worthy to note that, during many centuries, regulatory institutions and figures, such as Kings in Europe, did not usually seek to promote peace among individuals, nor did they seek to promote happiness or equality. They sought to maintain their power and the power of the elite who they worked in accomplice with (church and nobility). However, with time, and through wars and battles that cost the lives of many, regular people began to gain more and more power, the power that the King, and then the church and King, and then the aristocracy, church and King, once had a monopoly over, and part of this process meant that the ruling class, although not completely obliterated, had to refrain from its worst abuses in order to maintain social order. They were forced to compromise in order for social disparity to lessen, or else they were going to be overthrown. The French Revolution, I believe, was the breaking point that led to a new era in the West. An era in which the majority of the people, the ever excluded majority, were finally able to take some control and hold an important and officially recognized amount of power. And even if they were afterwards misrepresented by the bourgeoisie, there was a clear denial of Absolutism and there was an attempt of lessening the intervention of the church in the state.
But at this point, you may be asking yourself what all this has to do with body modification. Well, I think it has a lot to do. I think the modern conception of body modification, and that most people on BME share, would be impossible without the ideas of the Enlightenment that were the basis for the French Revolution. The ideas of freedom of expression and freedom of thought that were intended to become essential in the formation of a modern national state are the same ideas which I believe justify, or at least allow, the modified lifestyle choice. The idea that we are free to find our own ways to be happy (an idea that was even integrated a few years earlier to the Constitution of the United States) is also an example of this type of thinking. It is important to realize that, since we are free to think as we wish, and because our bodies belong to us and not to a god, consensual body modification is something we have a right to in modern societies. Acknowledging that we are free is essential for us to conceive that government does not have the right to limit our expressions of ideas in any way, including placing limits on body modification that seek to oppress rather than to protect. Part of the purpose of this essay is to try and explain the possible steps needed for this to happen.
II. The evolution of the social function of body modification
Nowadays, it is safe to say that the degree of acceptance that may exist of individualistic-motivated body modification is a reflection of a democracy’s level of respect of the desires of its people and of their freedom of expression. The role of body modification in society has changed, and this change is intrinsically related to a change in the function and conception of government in our societies. However, it is important to note this change and to contrast it with what specialists consider the original function of body modification in smaller and more simple societies: it was one of the most common methods for obtaining cohesion and stability.
It occurs that if everyone is modified and goes through a process that is painful (implying a voluntary sacrifice of the pleasure principle) in order to look like the rest of the people in a very specific group or community, a greater sense of unquestioned loyalty will exist to the community as a whole. This means that individuals will be more willing to defend their community against those who are different (ie: those without modifications that are identical to theirs, and therefore, those who are not part of the community/culture). Whether these people who are different represent a threat is out of the question: the thing is that, because of their differences, they can be easily converted into the �enemy�. The idea of sacrifice in order to benefit the all is very pervasive in this situation, and although the voluntary individual sacrifice of the pleasure principle is something that exists in all societies (ie: work, school), I believe that doing this through direct marking of the body, through the direct infliction of physical pain, is a very symbolic and ritualistic phenomenon and its consequences on the individual’s mind should not be taken lightly.
In these cases, matching bodies represent a resemblance in culture, which also represent an unquestionable faith in the same god and religion, for god and the state were always associated in ancient (and not-so-ancient) times. Social control is easier to attain when the people of a community feel a blind faith towards something, and impersonal (vs. individual and original) modification is a way of constructing blind faith in something. Since body modification is an important medium for homogenization, it would be logical for the authorities of a community i which freedom is not a value (this is not necessarily a government; it could also be a council or a leader) to ban modifications that would make someone significantly different. Due to the fact that the only acceptable role of body modification in a society like the one in question would be that of homogenizing and perpetrating stability through similarity and sacrifice of the pleasure principle, any form body modification that were not in accordance with this view would be considered to be an attack on the social order and would not be allowed.
Nowadays, however, things are very different. Social cohesion can be attained through other tactics (that may be equally repressive) but individual expression and empowerment is considered more and more to be a positive force in society.
For instance, in the Western world, most body modification practices (excluding infant circumcision, piercing of infants’ ears and, arguably, some cosmetic surgery) have hardly anything to do anymore with the social functions of ritual modification that were used as a way of promoting stability and homogeneity in a culture. Multiculturalism and tolerance have led to the embrace of a series of expressions that would have been inconceivable 100 years ago. Body modification and sexual practices which would easily have gotten people burnt by the inquisition 350 years ago, are now conceived as normal and desirable. I believe that this is due, partly, to the consolidation of a large sector of society that has worked hard at expanding the conception of what freedom is and also at better defining the acts that are acceptable under it. This, along with the growth of a necessity of identity and self-knowledge in a society characterized by its emptiness, has led to the the growth of an open-minded postmodern society that seeks authentic cultural experience that reassesses the value of individuals in hollow, massive and mostly anonymous urban societies that are still very repressive in many aspects. With more technology and freedom than ever, it has also led to a radicalization of the form of individualistic expressions that are allowed and that are practiced.
Nowadays, at least in theory, governments must seek to protect individual’s rights against collectivities that may seek to deny them their rights. They must protect their expressions, for in a society in which people’s rights are respected, their expressions are also respected, no matter how deviant from the norm may be, as long as they are not harming others. Since cohesion through forced similarity is no longer in accordance with the type of freedom we should aspire to at a societal level (although there are still ideas reminiscent of this: we could say being forced to not have body mods is the equivalent of being forced to get them in a tribal society, and that people who oppose body modification feel threatened by people who are different), the idea of not allowing others to be different should be addressed and confronted. It should be made clear at a socio-cultural level that, since everybody has the right to
think differently, everyone has the right to be different, too.
In terms of their ideology, and use of their bodies, people should be allowed to adhere to any beliefs they desire. Complete freedom over the body, as well as the mind, should also be understood as a right. And any rule or regulation regarding these rights should be aimed at fostering and promoting their cause.
III. Delimiting acceptable rules and regulations and clarifying the conception of body as belonging to the individual and the importance of consent
Contrary to what people in general would believe (although people with modifications may be a lot more aware of this), in modern Western democracies, in places frequently referred to (by their own citizens, usually) as the ‘free world’, people are not the ‘owners’ of their bodies. The state does, in certain extreme cases, make systematical decisions regarding the situations that people must go through with their bodies and lives. And in cases that are not so extreme, also. For example, in Oklahoma, USA, tattooing is prohibited. There was also an attempt by certain members of Congress in that same country to outlaw, on what many perceived as blatantly moral grounds, safe procedures such as tongue splitting. And although it is not a body modification, the fact that, in most of the countries of the West, the state does not allow for people who desire so to be euthanized, is quite worrying. These examples show a tendency of a systematic infringement of some of the most basic rights that adults should have in regards their lives and bodies: the decision to die whenever they want, to color their skins however they please and to shape their tongues in whatever shape they want them to be.
On the other hand, certain practices such as circumcision and piercing of newborns’ ears is something that occurs everyday, without anyone in Congress voicing against these practices, notwithstanding the fact that they are a non consensual. I believe this clearly reflects that there is no legal notion that the body belongs to the person stuck inside it, not to the government or parents.
Now that these last two examples were brought up, I will mention one of the characteristics that I think that should be considered obligatory to body modification, and that should perhaps even be established as a law: body modification should always be consensual. Non-consensual body modification, especially that which serves the purpose of forcing loyalty unto a culture or religion, should not be allowed. This includes religious-motivated infant circumcision. In the case of consensual body modification that seeks manufacture of loyalty, such as gang tattoos and perhaps certain tattoo styles which are associated to certain music scenes, I believe that, as long as they are of age, individuals should be considered capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to do it.
A law such as the aforementioned one would be a step towards the legal formalization of the idea that the body belongs to the individual, not to our parents, the state, or anyone else. Non-consensual activities that are not medically required on young people would be an infringement of their rights and considered mutilation in a society that effectively guaranteed one’s ownership of body.
Ideally, regulations and rules in body modification should always be aimed at guaranteeing that an individual has complete freedom over the way in which they want to treat their bodies, and at guaranteeing that they will be able to modify themselves safely. People who offer body modification services should be regulated in the sense that they should be legally required to conform to certain standards of quality and hygiene. Tattoo and piercing studios should have safe hygienic practices, which should be determined by experts in cross-contamination and in toxic residue disposal who have worked with practitioners on the subject and have a realistic understanding of the way things work. However, parameters of safety should be realistic: there is always a certain degree of risk. This risk should, however, be minimized.
And then we have the the necessity for adequate spaces. I would completely support rules that restricted the type of procedures that can be done at a studio for health and safety reasons. I guess it would not significantly affect things the way they are now, (pretty much all minor body modification practices, such as piercing, tattooing, branding, scarification and transdermal and sub-dermal implants are perfectly safe to do in a studio). In the case of procedures which were decided as only being suitable for getting done in hospitals or clinics, delimiting this would minimize the risk of something going wrong and would make attention easier for patients in case it did, which would possibly save lives.
And again, the issue of consent. Consent is one of the most important aspects of body modification. It requires that the party that is to be modified be completely aware of and in accord with getting the procedure they are to have done. They must want these procedures for themselves, and may not be forced by anyone else to get them. An example of a non-consensual act would be the tattooing of a baby, or of someone in coma, or of a dog. Of anyone who is unable to express their desire to get the procedure done. I think it would promote consent if a minimum legal age for piercing were enforced (I believe 16 would be an appropriate age), and also if it were required that all information regarding the known risks of the particular procedure to be done were disclosed in advance because, in order for people to be able to choose, they must have as much information necessary. It would also be good if a well-detailed and professionally written aftercare sheet were given to potential customers in advance, in order for them to read and decide if they are capable of properly caring for the modification they want to get done.
IV. The impossibility of setting rules and regulations on moral grounds
One thing is certain though: legal regulations and rules in body modification should never be subjugated to moral or religious causes. People in this society should fight to move away from the paradigm of religious impositions that has existed during the vast majority of time in which people have lived in societies. A religious society is anachronic because its values do not revolve around the pursuit of happiness or the pursuit of individual and societal fulfillment; they revolve around the fulfillment of certain values which help keep a society functional through loss of liberty. I do not believe that this to be a desirable, realistic, nor worthy goal for humans anymore: we have been through too much as species to go back to it. And if we understand morality (contrary to ethics) as a part of an arbitrary framework for human behavior that constrains people’s thoughts and actions to principles set in accordance with, mainly, religious beliefs and widespread prejudice, we can say that moral and religious norms and rules are never an acceptable way of deciding whether certain body modification practices should or should not be allowed. If someone decides to live their own life in accordance to religious rules, fine, but any attempt of converting this into a law should be considered a downright attack on people’s right to ownership of their bodies.
Personal prejudice or aesthetics should never be a grounds for disallowing a form of body modification, either. The idea that something can be objectively considered of �good taste� or �obscene� is a very idealistic notion that forgets to take into consideration that aesthetic perceptions are historical and cultural, not universal. If regulations should exist in body modification they should refer to the safe, consensual and hygienic practice of all types of body modification that have been proven to be safe to the public, not to whether a type of body modification should be banned for being ‘of bad taste’, despite its having been proven safe.
In the case of extreme practices, such as amputation, subincision and other �high-risk� surgical bod mods, I think it would be best that the option of getting these procedures done by professional medical practitioners existed, as well as that of getting them done by experienced and licensed body modification practitioners. For this, it would require that the government actually worked with practitioners and researchers in order to set a norm on the safest ways of getting these procedures done, and that they actually understood the importance of allowing medical practitioners to do these types of procedures without the abnormal legal consequences that may exist for them nowadays. I believe there is nothing wrong with these procedures, as long as they are done consensually and safely on adults, and I also believe that extreme modifications should ultimately treated equally to cosmetic surgery because they are very similar in terms of risks and possible consequences. Some argue that people wanting an amputation out of pleasure are always psychologically disturbed; however, I think it is very clear to many of us on BME that this is not always true. And if it were to be true in some cases, it is also perhaps true in the cases of some people who get cosmetic surgery, especially those who seek surgery as a way of looking like their favorite celebrity, or somebody of another race. And if the government allows these people to get the procedures they want done, despite the fact that their abnormal desire of being someone they will never be is an unequivocal sign of deep mental disturbance, I do not see a reason for denying others an amputation or a castration. To me it even seems healthier, because those who simply want one less digit have a realistic goal, and reaching it will be the end of their disturbances. However, in the case of people who want to look like someone else, plastic surgery addiction is very likely to occur because it will never be ‘just quite right’.
Taking this into account, we can easily deduce that the reason why most heavy mods are not allowed as cosmetic procedures is based on prejudices. The main difference between cosmetic surgery and extreme body modification is society’s perception of the latter and the fact that it does not consider it to be healthy because it is not culturally acceptable. However, in terms of procedure, heavy mods are not nearly as dangerous as some cosmetic surgeries may end up being, so I believe that their acceptance would also further the idea of freedom of expression and freedom over our own bodies.
V. Conclusions
Now that body modification’s role has shifted to one that is, ideally, of self-expression and of betterment of the individual, and now that the political struggle undertaken by many members of society to further the political achievements in terms of personal liberty and freedom obtained in the last 200 years has reached a very advanced point, I believe that the possibility of freedom of our bodies conceived as a right is not as far fetched as it could have seemed a few decades ago.
However, for this to happen, there is still a long way to go. We must challenge, among other things, many of the ideas regarding modifications. There is still a great deal of prejudice against certain modifications and against people who get them done. There are people who hold a great amount of political power who actually want a homogenized society and are against freedom of expression.
These are the people we must actively challenge by getting mods for the sake of ourselves, by not repressing our desires of getting them if we sincerely want to. We must challenge those who say our bodies are not ours by treating our bodies like they belong to us, because they do. We must understand the political significance of our actions at a personal, but also at a larger level.
If we continue to do this, along with a professional practice of modification, the consequences will be overall positive for the body modification community (and society in general) because, if we work to make the world a more open-minded place, and work to make the experience of getting body mods something more pleasant and something that rarely goes wrong, more people will be happy with their mods and a betterment of individuals through mods is more likely to occur at a larger level because of this.
The fact that there would be more people enjoying body modification would mean a growth and betterment of the community and the world as a whole. Body modification is capable of that; it is something with the potential of making the world a better place. That is why I believe it is worth fighting for. And for the same reason, I also believe that challenging all governmental abuses of power and all the rules and regulations that distance us from freedom of our bodies is also worthwhile. We must remember (and remind) that governments derive their power from the people, and we must also remember (and remind) that our bodies belong to ourselves, and no one else.
Click here to comment on this article
Online presentation copyright © 2006 Shannon Larratt, Darrin Fowler, and BMEzine.com. Requests to republish must be confirmed in writing. For bibliographical purposes this article was first published online June 7th, 2005 by BMEZINE.COM in Toronto, Canada.
All guest columns | Return to BME/News
